For years scientists thought everyone around the world evolved from a single population in Africa. Yet a paper published today shows evidence the earliest humans spread across a much larger area. Instead of a single population, the new data show we evolved from a series of interlinked groups, introducing diversity much earlier than we thought.

Technology has a history almost as old as humankind. When humans first lived in Africa, they began creating tools made of stone, which started the chain of events that led to the invention of the screen you are reading these words on today.

Yet new evidence shows instead of a single group of people coming up with these tools, there were groups of humans living across Africa. The groups were kept separate by forests, rivers and deserts, and while they could not communicate with each other, they were separately inventing their own tools.

The results have the potential to change the way we think about our genetic origin, adding complexity to the story of ancient migration in Africa.

A collaboration of researchers, lead by Oxford University, combined the study of bones, stones and genes, along with detailed reconstructions of the African continent’s climate and habitat over time.

Some of the least welcoming parts of Africa today, like the Sahara, were once wet and green, full of lakes, rivers, and abundant wildlife. On the other hand, some humid, green tropical regions were once dry and arid.

Using this information, the researchers put together a new picture of our evolution over the past 300,000 years. The combination of data showed that, instead of a single population, our ancestors were spread out across Africa.

They lived in diverse habitats with changing environmental boundaries, like forests and deserts; because of this they did not interact consistently. The separation spanned more than a thousand years, which gave the human species plenty of time to diversify. This led to the incredible diversity seen in humans across the world today.

In terms of artifacts, the team found evidence humans were inventing new technology separately, at around the same time, across Africa.

“Many had assumed that early human ancestors originated as a single, relatively large ancestral population, and exchanged genes and technologies like stone tools in a more or less random fashion,” ~ Eleanor Scerri, lead author of the paper.

More on link https://www.wired.co.uk/article/human-evolution-africa

_________________“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted”― Ralph Waldo Emerson

This is really cool, it reminds me of how some scientists think that human remains that have been classified as different species might actually be from the same species, but that it was simply possible for those people to look quite different from one another, just as modern people can.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:This is really cool, it reminds me of how some scientists think that human remains that have been classified as different species might actually be from the same species, but that it was simply possible for those people to look quite different from one another, just as modern people can.

we do make some weird exceptions for people and dogs when it comes size and shape and classified as the same species

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

this has been largely suspected, in part because as we learned more about pre-sapien hominids we saw some of them were more advanced and wider spread than originally thought.

I think there was more interconnection than we currently account for, it might not have been amjor but even just a few individuals migrating between tribes in each generation would have spread technology and ideas around a cluster of tribes. Even if they didn't have trade or diplomacy it would only take a few with adventurous spirits to create some connection.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

eddie wrote:I have a real problem thinking about the fact we may come from monkeys. It just seems so....blah. So, matter of fact, like we aren’t more than just animals.

Well, we're incredibly powerful animals in some respects.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

eddie wrote:I have a real problem thinking about the fact we may come from monkeys. It just seems so....blah. So, matter of fact, like we aren’t more than just animals.

Well, we're incredibly powerful animals in some respects.

But I want to be a soul! Not a basic, boring animal.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

eddie wrote:I have a real problem thinking about the fact we may come from monkeys. It just seems so....blah. So, matter of fact, like we aren’t more than just animals.

People didn't evolve from monkeys...

People evolved from "hominids"; hominids and other "apes/primates" (gorillas, chimpanzees, orang utans) evolved from a "common ancestor" on the family tree of evolution -- monkeys have evolved from an earlier branch of that tree, meaning there is no direct evolution from monkeys to any surviving higher-level families..

With this article proposing a wider range of hominid "species" interbreeding to give rise to modern mankind, it doesn't in fact "rewrite" the family history, so much as pushing the existence of the fabled 'missing link' common ancestor back a few more hundred thousand years.

As any "species" that are closely enough related as to interbreed, are in truth "sub-species" genetically speaking, and not some totally new and previously undiscovered lifeform..

Trace the DNA back far enough, and the "common ancestor" for the various primates (including mankind..) still "came out of Africa".

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

eddie wrote:Yes. Evolution is onetheory. I accept that it is one theory.

Just one theory, I swear you do this to be contraversial

Just as valid as Adam and Eve, is it?

Remember, a theory is only 'just a theory' until enough evidence comes forth to turn the meaning of theory into an Explanation.

Evolution is a theory in the explantory sense.

Just because you don't like the idea of people descending from basic primates, doesn't make it unlikely. Do you know even further back we come from bacteria-like organisms? You probably just dismissed evolution outright

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

eddie wrote:I’d like you to admit, that your belief is based upon what you’ve read.

So it’s a theory. Right?

That was a complete dismissal of two fairly basic questions. I'm going to answer yours however, since I do answer people when asked something. I hope you'll show me the decency to do the same later.

It IS based on what is read, same as my belief in William I winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066 is based on what I've read. Same as my belief in Alexander Fleming being the inventor of penicillin is based on what I've read. When ALL the evidence points to ONE thing being true then THAT thing becomes more than 'just a theory'.

There is so much corroborating evidence FOR evolution, agreed on by nearly all scientists, that if this were a murder trial we'd have tried and convicted the felon a century ago.

You seem to live in this world where one googled article is the equivalent of 1000 peer reviewed scientific research papers.

EVERYTHING you and I believe that is NOT something we have done or witnessed for ourselves is something we believe based on what we have read. BUT, it should be abundantly clear that some things are more credible than others.

You probably won't read this far, but if you do, I'd ask you to please entertain the next two questions again (since I clearly answered yours):

1. If a person seemed to be guilty of murder due to overwhelming evidence (to the degree of 90+% certainty) would you convict them?

And 2. Is it evolution overall you doubt, or just the idea of humans evolving from apes?

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

It's 'The Theory of' which is Completely different it means we DO know the general idea is correct it is just some of the specifics we are having trouble proving and most of that comes down to the fact that to become 'the Law of' it has to be expressed as a Mathematical formula which for evolution is incomprehensibly complex

And the Fossil record Proves it the mere fact that Marsupials only naturally exist on the continents that were once Gondwanalandand we Can track the migration of every mammal and their arrival in the 'Gondwanaland continents' from the continents that were once Pangaea. Both Land masses separated in the age on the dinosaursand where inhabited by the same by the same 'proto-mammal' that when it became geographically separated by the spiting of the original super-continent into Pangaea and Gondwanaland became to Very different lineages of animals (one has a pouch the other has an expandable womb)

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

eddie wrote:I’d like you to admit, that your belief is based upon what you’ve read.

So it’s a theory. Right?

That was a complete dismissal of two fairly basic questions. I'm going to answer yours however, since I do answer people when asked something. I hope you'll show me the decency to do the same later.

It IS based on what is read, same as my belief in William I winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066 is based on what I've read. Same as my belief in Alexander Fleming being the inventor of penicillin is based on what I've read. When ALL the evidence points to ONE thing being true then THAT thing becomes more than 'just a theory'.

There is so much corroborating evidence FOR evolution, agreed on by nearly all scientists, that if this were a murder trial we'd have tried and convicted the felon a century ago.

You seem to live in this world where one googled article is the equivalent of 1000 peer reviewed scientific research papers.

EVERYTHING you and I believe that is NOT something we have done or witnessed for ourselves is something we believe based on what we have read. BUT, it should be abundantly clear that some things are more credible than others.

You probably won't read this far, but if you do, I'd ask you to please entertain the next two questions again (since I clearly answered yours):

1. If a person seemed to be guilty of murder due to overwhelming evidence (to the degree of 90+% certainty) would you convict them?

And 2. Is it evolution overall you doubt, or just the idea of humans evolving from apes?

Eds, I answered your question, isn't a discussion a two way street?

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

Hey Les, just wondering - where do you theorize life actually originated from?

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:Hey Les, just wondering - where do you theorize life actually originated from?

Well, firstly, I've no real idea. The best theory I've read or heard is of the 'ingredients for life' coming to Earth on meteors, or the primordial soup theory. The latter seems less likely to me, because life spontaneously evolving from nothing seems unlikely. However, assuming (and I mean that in the strictest meaning of the word) that EVERYTHING once came from nothing (that word is not being used in the strictest sense) then it certainly could have happened.

However, the idea of life coming from elsewhere seems more probably, based purely on my own feelings. Which still raises the question of WHERE those 'ingredients' came from (and which must, ultimately, have also come from 'sort of nothing'.).

So overall, my absolutely honest answer is (as any honest person should say), I don't know. But life coming from somewhere else in space is my best guess.

There are, of course, 'theories' I would discount, but those two have merit

As a side note: I also do not totally discount the possibility that 'extraterrestrial' life came and tampered with evolution at some point to produce humans. That does NOT mean that I think such a thing DID happen, only that I entertain the possibility. Also, such a possibility does NOT mean evolution doesn't happen, because it evidently does.

All interesting subjects, which I wish people wouldn't discount because they go against 'religion' 'closed-mindedness' or 'feelings'.

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:Hey Les, just wondering - where do you theorize life actually originated from?

Well, firstly, I've no real idea. The best theory I've read or heard is of the 'ingredients for life' coming to Earth on meteors, or the primordial soup theory. The latter seems less likely to me, because life spontaneously evolving from nothing seems unlikely. However, assuming (and I mean that in the strictest meaning of the word) that EVERYTHING once came from nothing (that word is not being used in the strictest sense) then it certainly could have happened.

However, the idea of life coming from elsewhere seems more probably, based purely on my own feelings. Which still raises the question of WHERE those 'ingredients' came from (and which must, ultimately, have also come from 'sort of nothing'.).

So overall, my absolutely honest answer is (as any honest person should say), I don't know. But life coming from somewhere else in space is my best guess.

There are, of course, 'theories' I would discount, but those two have merit

As a side note: I also do not totally discount the possibility that 'extraterrestrial' life came and tampered with evolution at some point to produce humans. That does NOT mean that I think such a thing DID happen, only that I entertain the possibility. Also, such a possibility does NOT mean evolution doesn't happen, because it evidently does.

All interesting subjects, which I wish people wouldn't discount because they go against 'religion' 'closed-mindedness' or 'feelings'.

That's interesting, because while I juggle/wonder about the "life here came from out there" vs. "primordial soup" theories, I kind of hope the opposite, that life on Earth originated on Earth.

I was telling eddie this earlier, I think it's just because if life on Earth originated somewhere else, we'd have an even deeper mystery to solve as to how life came about in the first place.

At least if it came from here, the mystery is right under our noses.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:Hey Les, just wondering - where do you theorize life actually originated from?

Well, firstly, I've no real idea. The best theory I've read or heard is of the 'ingredients for life' coming to Earth on meteors, or the primordial soup theory. The latter seems less likely to me, because life spontaneously evolving from nothing seems unlikely. However, assuming (and I mean that in the strictest meaning of the word) that EVERYTHING once came from nothing (that word is not being used in the strictest sense) then it certainly could have happened.

However, the idea of life coming from elsewhere seems more probably, based purely on my own feelings. Which still raises the question of WHERE those 'ingredients' came from (and which must, ultimately, have also come from 'sort of nothing'.).

So overall, my absolutely honest answer is (as any honest person should say), I don't know. But life coming from somewhere else in space is my best guess.

There are, of course, 'theories' I would discount, but those two have merit

As a side note: I also do not totally discount the possibility that 'extraterrestrial' life came and tampered with evolution at some point to produce humans. That does NOT mean that I think such a thing DID happen, only that I entertain the possibility. Also, such a possibility does NOT mean evolution doesn't happen, because it evidently does.

All interesting subjects, which I wish people wouldn't discount because they go against 'religion' 'closed-mindedness' or 'feelings'.

That's interesting, because while I juggle/wonder about the "life here came from out there" vs. "primordial soup" theories, I kind of hope the opposite, that life on Earth originated on Earth.

I was telling eddie this earlier, I think it's just because if life on Earth originated somewhere else, we'd have an even deeper mystery to solve as to how life came about in the first place.

At least if it came from here, the mystery is right under our noses.

But questions are also fun to search for answers to

However, it we want a conclusivs answer in our lifetimes then the primordial soup is the preferable option. On the other hand, it still wouldn't answer the question of how those particular ingredients and this particular celestial rock came together. The answer of how life came about may ultimately be impossible for humans to ever truly answer - at least before we wipe ourselves out.

Pleasant thoughts

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

Yes! And in that vein, life definitely originated in space because Earth originated in space.

Funny how we can so easily be pulled back into the mindset that we're somehow separate from the rest of space, when we're really just a little chunk of it like all the rest. We have life, well yeah, and probably a good number of the others have life as well.

_________________“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:Yes! And in that vein, life definitely originated in space because Earth originated in space.

Funny how we can so easily be pulled back into the mindset that we're somehow separate from the rest of space, when we're really just a little chunk of it like all the rest. We have life, well yeah, and probably a good number of the others have life as well.

Right. There are some people who, when discussing things like religion, god etc. will ask me: "Well do you believe in aliens?" as if it were remotely similar. This universe is just way too big for us to be the life on the only rock that can contain life. The laws of probability say their MUST be life elsewhere, loads of it.

The biggest mystery of all is where it all came from. People who are happy to accept simplistic teachings and ideas, at the cost of not endlessly pondering that biggest mystery, are seriously missing out.

_________________"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead"Teddy Roosevelt

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:Hey Les, just wondering - where do you theorize life actually originated from?

I theorize (as an expansion on the Solar Divinity theorem) that Carbon Atoms where 'switched on' in some way, probably through bombardment of complex solar radiation (specifically Solar Neutrinos)

this is supported by the fact the these Sub atomic particles have played major role in the creation of the universe as we know it, without them(or their Supernova variant) there probably would not be as many elements as there are, including ones critical to the human body

I consider this 'Switching on' the creation of 'soul/life energy/Animus' whatever you want to call it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?